In their claim that everyone is engaged in argument, whether they realize it or not, nearly every day, I thought, the authors of the First Year Writing: Perspective on argument were being preposterous. How can I not know if I were being engaged in arguments on a daily basis? However, it is only after reading about the various topics that the omnipresence of argument in our lives struck me. Indeed, the claim, that initially made me feel skeptical, was not much of an aberration anymore. Having absorbed the required information from the book, I decided to test my knowledge of arguments by trying to identify some of them. I, therefore, began to think about the various activities that I have been involved in, during the past week. I recall my roommate who, in one of our discussions, asserted that math is the best major that could ever be. I remember reciprocating by evincing the fact that, without engineers, our lives would be arduous and that my major is of paramount importance. This is how a one-on-one, everyday traditional argument began. It was analogous to a presidential debate with each of us trying to bring down his opponent with successive blows. We threw our ideas, beliefs, evidences, claims, statistics at each other; desperately attempting to make a strong case. “Math is everywhere and it is the very base of every engineering major”, he said. “But it is the engineers who design the things that help people”, I retorted. Our altercation grew in intensity as we addressed the different prospects that both of our respective majors offered. It was clear to me that the scope of opportunities for a mathematician was somewhat narrower as compared to the engineer’s. He again disagreed by referring to all the new fields where math was being solicited. It was, however, not long before we reached what political scientists would call satisficing point or “common ground” as...

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...
Dominance
In society humans use stratification to organize groups of people. In doing so they are creating what is known as a social hierarchy. Social hierarchies show one of the ways humans achieve asserting dominance over others. Wanting to assert dominance over others and be “above them” is humannature, whether it is asserting dominance over the opposite sex or one society over another.
In history thehumannature of asserting dominance over the opposite sex happens quite often. In The Life and Words of an !Kung Woman, Nisa is explaining her life in the San people society and is unknowingly showing the inequality of the sexes. She has just gotten married to Tashay and is unhappy, but the village people tell her that a husband is a good thing, but “Even tomorrow, while you are crying, Tashay may kill an animal. But when he returns, he won’t give you any meat; only he will eat.” (Nisa 39). This inequality also happens in the aboriginal societies of Australia; however the story behind why the inequality is there is explained differently in Stories from the Dreamtime. According to oral history of the aboriginal societies a woman, Mutjinga, was in charge of all of the ceremonies, good fortune, and dead spirits, but she goes mad and begins to crave the flesh of men. So she begins to use her dark magic to attack men and eat them, but one day she is killed by her disloyal...

...Research Essay
What does the Spanish Conquest of the Aztec and the Inca Empires tell us
about the nature of human kind?
My essay is about the Spanish Conquest of the Aztec and the Inca Empires. Who the
Aztecs and the Incas were, how they lived and why they got attacked by the Spanish.
Why the Spanish went to America. Who were the leaders of the Spanish conquest, the
leaders of the Aztecs and the Incas. When and why the Spanish conquest happened.
What ishumannature and why does it affect my topic so much. The Spanish in some
ways were just doing what we all do but in other ways were harming the Native
Americans and influencing American history.
The Aztecs were a Native American tribe who came to be in 1300. They lived in the
valley of Mexico, Lake Texcoco. The Aztecs were forced to go and live in a swampy,
marshy place because the other tribes had already taken the "good land". The Aztecs
were very clever people so the fact that they didn't have the best land wasn't a problem.
They believed that their God had sent them there. They made use of what they had.
Once they had settled into their new homes, they started conquering neighboring tribes,
one after another. The Aztecs took something from each tribe that they conquered,
anything from food to jewels. The Aztecs grew and grew until they became a huge
empire. This empire was eventually take over by the Spanish. The other empire that the
Spanish took over was the...

...Deana Scalise Paper 4
HumanNatureHumannature is based on self-preservation and selfishness in both Rashomon by Ryunosuke Akutagawa and The Lottery by Shirley Jackson. In The Lottery humannature is selfish because they kill someone in the community for their own personal gain. Selfishness also has a negative effect in Rashomon due to the harmful extremes the servant takes to stay alive. The way humannature is portrayed in these two stories is sometimes similar to the way people act in real life.
In Rashomon the servant turns into a thief for the purpose of staying alive. He knows better than to steal from a woman who is already poor and living amongst corpses but he steals from her anyway. He tries to justify his actions when he says “You won’t blame me, then, for taking your clothes. That’s what I have to do to keep from starving to death.” His words show that he knows what he is about to do is wrong, but stating his reasons for why he needs to do it makes him feel better. At the beginning of the story he has no intentions of becoming a thief. Soon he realizes how bad his conditions are, this weakens his morals and his first priority becomes survival. This shows that when it comes to staying alive people become selfish and less concerned with other humans well being. Humans will go to...

...That Are Depraved, But in Those That Are Good According to Nature"
T
he obstacle of figuring out the nature and instinctual behavior of humans has been toppled by many philosophical writers. Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Niccolo Machiavelli, in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and The Prince, subsequently, talks about this subject. In the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau talks about the natural human state and is transition to its current civilized state. In The Prince, Machiavelli talks about the nature of humans already in a civilized state. Rousseau's and Machiavelli's ideas on the best state of humans contrast because Rousseau believes that the best state of a human is in its natural uncivilized state, yet Machiavelli discusses how it is best fit for humans to be in a society. Another writer, William Golding, in his novel Lord of the Flies, actually indirectly discusses both Machiavell and Rousseau's beliefs by reflecting their ideas onto a fictional story of children stranded on an island. In doing this Golding refutes Machiavelli's view the best state of humannature and thoroughly supports Rousseau's view of the best state of nature for humans. This paper will discuss, in comparison, both Rousseau and Machiavelli's opposing beliefs and then show Golding's...

...Introduction
Throughout history the debate has always arisen about what is humannature. Is it in our nature to be good or is it our nature to be evil? Many philosophers have joined the debate taking stances on either end of the spectrum, while some try to pose alternative answers. Thomas Hobbes believes man’s nature to be bad. He claims humans to be naturally selfish, like animals we are driven by our own passions. Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. believed that man is naturally good. They believe man’s nature to be a state of harmony but instead evil results from people’s ignorance. Through the intellectual discourses of philosophers many convincing points have been made about the essence of humannature. However, despite their valid points, none have managed to create a sound argument for their belief over other proposed beliefs.
Body 1- HumanNature is Bad
In Thomas Hobbes state of nature all men are equal and are able to act freely for there is no formal government in place to curb human actions. However, with no government or superior power in place, there are no consequences for any actions that people perform. Hobbes believes that because man is naturally bad, when in his natural state he will act greedily and selfish. People will do as they please...

...”-Carl Sagan.
If there is only one thing that humanity has to learn, that would be the superior power of compliance with natural laws. Human species have never had any true freedom. Freedom is illusion. When it comes to the order of nature, either you align or you suffer.
So, who are we, homo sapiens, a branch of great monkeys, the source of all problems on the Earth, the reason behind dramatic changes of environment, evil governors undertaking the role of the God? When a monkey looks into the mirror he sees a monkey. When a man looks into the mirror he sees superiority and independence. Why? Albert Camus would have the right answer for it, “ Man is the only creature that refuses to be what he is.” I believe that, religious we are or not, we all think, that we are the children of God, who creates and rules the world by his own will, and we, as his prototype, are capable to resubmit and challenge his choices. No one is more superior and higher than humans, none other creature. We don’t think of the world, as it’s our temporary residence for a certain amount of time, and we are the guests here, we rather think we are the creators of all that inhabits the Earth, a center of Universe.
Humanity lives by the rule of a “second chance”, which I consider to be one of the greatest mistakes in all the history of relationships between humans and nature and one of the biggest hypocritical assumption that can...

...
According to Plato’s ideas of HumanNature, man can not be without imperfections. Plato believes that man cannot live alone in humannature and due to this weakness man will naturally form social relationships that enhance his chances of surviving in nature. Plato goes onto say, with these social relationships must come social and political structure to control greed and envy, without social and political structure these can not be maintained. With all that being said Plato colors his views of government by saying it is inevitable. As long as man must form a social relationship to survive, he will eventually have to construct government to control social relations.
Aristotle’s famous saying “Man is a political animal” says a lot about his views of humannature. Like Plato, Aristotle believes the construction of government is inevitable. In humannature males are superior to females. Slavery is a natural part of life and slavery is helpful to society. A slave master must always be good to his slaves. Aristotle believes that family is a component of humannature. In humannature man needs he family to survive. “Man is a political animal” pants the color of how Aristotle views the nature of government. He believes that man will always form...

...NATURE AND HUMANNature and human have always interacted throughout history, and the interaction of the two forces
has evolved into a series of demands that people have put on nature to survive and develop. By
contrast a minority of people have questioned the state of things and tried to figure out how
humanity and nature can interact and develop together, and through their questioning they have
come to define their idea as ecological cosmology.
To begin with it is important to always start from the word itself, as each and every word has a
meaning firstly by itself, and then it can acquire more depth through its use in a given context.
Ecological cosmology comes from the Greek 'oikos' and 'logos' , these two words define
respectively a 'dwelling place' and a 'discourse' or 'intelligible manifestation'. Ecological is
something that deals with the environment in which one is, and on what can be said of that
environment. Cosmology is instead related to 'kosmos' or order and its intelligible manifestation,
thus it can be said that there is an intelligible order or a logic to how things happen. Ecological
cosmology can be seen as the order in which things happen in a given environment, and many
versions of it exist, as many people with different backgrounds thought of defining the order of
things depending on how themselves and their environment are shaped or are going to be...